critique my letter to the editor...go ahead be vicious

[stevebreeze]

this letter was in the Daily Herald( suburban Chicago) today. I tried to make it short and sweet. How could I have improved it?


No Headline
Daily Herald Reports
Posted 2/6/2005
Private accounts not the solution
Private accounts do nothing to make the funding of Social Security more secure. In fact, the massive borrowing to fund SS while tax money is being diverted into private accounts would only make SS more expensive.

Due in part to higher administration costs, private accounts for SS will not return substantially more then the current system. Best of all is the idea that you can leave private account money to your heirs. That is, of course, if you die young, there is also the other option, living far longer than your private account lasts, ensuring extreme poverty.

There is a magic bullet solution to fixing SS. Economic growth from the bottom up. When wages increase from the bottom up the government revenue from payroll taxes goes up faster, and Social Security becomes more solvent for all of us. Things like raising the minimum wage, increasing funding for infrastructure improvements, and education. When we all do better we all do better.

Steve Bruesewitz St. Charles

[Gman]

1. Edit your title

vis·cous Audio pronunciation of "viscous" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vsks)
adj.

1. Having relatively high resistance to flow.
2. Viscid; sticky.

[stevebreeze]

3. can't spell....

[Why Syzygy]

2. Congrats!

Thanks for getting out there on the front lines.

I'm not gonna critique the letter.
It was good enough to be published. That's good enough, my friend.

[imenja]

4. It might help to provide figures

specifics to back your point up about the fact private accounts do nothing to solve the insolvency problem. Other than that, it looks good.

Edit: I thought you were about to send it in. If it has already been published, there is no point in asking for criticisms now. Good job getting it in print!

[stevebreeze]

5. I tend to fill up my writing with figures.

That was what I was trying to avoid. I might point out that even the Bush maladministration now admits Private accounts have no function in SS's solvency. Mind I am not trying to be disagreeable, just wanted to explain my thinking.

[imenja]

6. since it's published it's all moot

but a few specifics help. "Filling it up" with numbers is never good. It's a matter of balancing analysis with evidence.

[stevebreeze]

8. I guess some of my point is (a) I recycle everything I write

(b) I encourage the use of plagiarism when ever useful(at least as far as my writing).

[moggie12]

7. I liked it as is -- especially your 2nd paragraph

I saw a piece on TV about a woman who'd lost her husband young (he was only 42) -- she was saying she only got a $250 SS burial payment and Bush's plan would be better because she would have gotten what he'd accrued. Your letter shows the problem with that thinking -- what if he'd lived to 82 but ran out of money? People need to better understand the "insurance" aspect of SS and your letter does a great job of that.

P.S. Just that you took the time to write was great. More people writing to their newspapers will help kill Bush's "reform plan" (i.e., gutting of SS).

[meow2u3]

9. First of all, don't just call it 'private accounts'

Rather, call it what Harry Reid termed it: Social Security Roulette, or better yet, the "retirement Ponzi scheme."

I suggest you also mention that if Grandma wants to gamble her retirement money, she'd head on off to the nearest casino!